Staggering but completely unsurprising at the same time.

We're lucky these bewigged buffoons don't get the chance to don the black cap in anger any longer.

I wonder if Stuart Hall is kicking himself for pleading guilty? And reflecting on how things might have turned out if his case had been scheduled after the other two, not before.

Its something of a no win situation for the CPS. If they don't prosecute when there are multiple accusations they'll get savaged in the media. But its very difficult for them to know how well witnesses will stand up to the pressure of cross examination recounting events from decades ago. And if the CPS don't prosecute we'll never hear the weaknesses in their case.

Perhaps if Hall had pleaded not guilty there would have been similar weaknesses in the evidence given by his victims. With the same criticisms being made of the CPS as we've heard this week.

The decision to prosecute Hall was vindicated by his guilty pleas. But it might not have been based on any stronger evidence than we've heard in these two cases.

I'm pretty sure one of them (if we're thinking of the same popular group) has been prosecuted for similar offences, but may have to check that!

The manager did time for gross indecency with teenage boys and one of them was convicted for downloading child porn - none of their teen and pre-teen fan base has ever come forward with an abuse charge though.

As Neil Sedaka sang, "Nobody wants an overage groupie now..."

The "lawyers" who defended him should be charged with theft and elder abuse.

Once that guilty plea came in he was royally and totally screwed. IMO he did it because he was scared by the threat of the long sentence. Well the state screwed him over by reneging on the short sentence. And he's screwed with the new trial and the money grabbers are queuing up to take his house.

The CPS and police had their ideal target with the dead Jimmy Savile. They managed to get a frail 84 year old to plead guilty. But they're probably the only convictions they're going to manage.

In the realms of cycling fatalities (commited by motorvehicle drivers) judges are well known to misdirect juries with their motorcentric bias summing up, often ignoring the law completely to the point that killers get away scott free. A recent one the judge read a statement regarding the defendant's work (cancer specialist) and mentioned a dozen times about the character of the person (nothing mentioned of character of the person killed) yet the evidence completely pointed toward the driver being wholly in the wrong. http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/ne ... id=1363185 The judge even allowed this staement from the defendents solicitor "Ben Pontin (deceased boyfriend cycling with her) said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place. “He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.” That the person in question was an experienced cyclist seemed to matter not in the judges bias. The Cyclist's Touring Club are striving to get better justice and the useless CPS to pull their socks up. How they can stop bias judges making (probably) illegal statements in summing up I've no idea.

In the realms of cycling fatalities (commited by motorvehicle drivers) judges are well known to misdirect juries with their motorcentric bias summing up, often ignoring the law completely to the point that killers get away scott free. A recent one the judge read a statement regarding the defendant's work (cancer specialist) and mentioned a dozen times about the character of the person (nothing mentioned of character of the person killed) yet the evidence completely pointed toward the driver being wholly in the wrong. http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/ne ... id=1363185 The judge even allowed this staement from the defendents solicitor "Ben Pontin (deceased boyfriend cycling with her) said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place. “He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.” That the person in question was an experienced cyclist seemed to matter not in the judges bias. The Cyclist's Touring Club are striving to get better justice and the useless CPS to pull their socks up. How they can stop bias judges making (probably) illegal statements in summing up I've no idea.

Off topic?

Maybe Hall pleaded guilty because he knew he was?

I totally agree that now DLT has been proved innocent that the state should pay some of his defence costs. I believe he had to sell his house to cover his legal fees.

As has been said before the CPS are damned if they do and damned if they don't in terms of taking a case to court.

The comments re standards at the time are interesting. I believe that a rape charge should be brought if the evidence is there and similarly in the case of sexually abusing children. However, I don't believe that bringing a charge for a celeb goosing a female is in the public interest as this behaviour, although unacceptable now, was par for the course at the time.

The unnamed Scottish band (and lets be honest, most people who watched TOTP at the time know who they are) probably had lots of opportunities to abuse under age fans. Whether thay took those opportunities is a matter for conjecture but I'm pretty sure Gary Glitter's behaviour towards children didn't only emerge later in life.

How people interact in the workplace is a bit of a minefield as these days you have different personal standards. Touching anyone I would say is an absolute no no. At a former employer I had a male MD and a female sales manager who were both very touchy-feely in their approach to other staff, often putting an arm around your shoulder as they talked to you. Even as a straight single bloke I felt uncomfortable in the female sales reps approach. She was often flirtatious in an attempt to get her way which I thought was out of order and she couldn't understand why her charms didn't work on me.

Humour on the other hand is a bit harder to put definite rules in place for as peoples sense of humour varies greatly. At the same employer as above one of the secretaries, in her 50s, had worked on military bases most of her life and had a sense of humour that was filthier than mine (and that takes some doing) while one of the other secretaries was almost Victorian in her prudishness. I think if you don't know the person you are making a remark to/telling a joke to well enough to know what the sense of humour is like then you should just keep witty remarks to yourself to avoid offence.

Some interesting points in your post which I agree with entirely.

My current job involves me going into workplaces on a daily basis often for the first time to train individuals or groups of people usually in an office environment - I'll often be in five different company's most weeks.

One thing that you learn very quickly is that you aren't paid to be a character in a play or to have a personality, not immediately anyway, which is where the whole concept of that ridiculous TV program "The Apprentice" falls flat on its arrse - if any of those contestants or even Sugar himself acted like that in a real business environment then they'd be shown the door pretty quickly or at the least ignored by their colleagues, if they were in a managerial capacity then a manager who puts on a show like some of those contestants do would certainly not motivate me, nor many others I suspect.

Keeping a business personality separate from your own character is vital and when the client is paying several hundred pounds an hour (I don't get that !) for your presence then they expect you to be precise and business-like, not a clown.

All of them grocers?
lol